On Wed, 26 Jan 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
It's actually pretty well known and it is documented in several places in plain
sight.
Where?
A search for IPV6_V6ONLY in the FreeBSD Handbook yields nothing. You'd
think the brokenness would at least be mentioned in the handbook.
A similar search o
We were a mostly PPPoA shop, and were doing PPPoE on our FTTH but moved to
DHCP because of our desire to move to v6 without waiting for the access
vendor and to get rid of supporting that username/password combo. And DSL
modems that we're replacing in the field we're moving from PPPoA to PPPoE
bec
By IA_TA support, do you mean the ability for the 7206VXR to act as the DHCPv6
server? If I understand you correctly, I have it working well with DHCPv6
relay.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Jack Bates [mailto:jba...@brightok.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 12:04 PM
To: nanog@n
If Cisco won't do a good job of RBE on the 7206VXR, I may just need to stick
with PPPoEv6 on the SR train. I have that successfully working in a test bed.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Jack Bates [mailto:jba...@brightok.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 12:04 PM
To: nanog@nanog.o
Have you looked at D-Link's DIR-825? It has most of the things you're
looking for. The DIR-655 is a more affordable option.
In regards to (2), is it even possible to do DHCPv6-PD on with a SLAAC WAN?
In regards to (3), I have that working on SRE, but with an external DHCP
server.
Frank
-O
All the leading MSOs are actively working towards IPv6 trials and
deployments, they're just at different stages. Comcast, as we all can see,
is publicly leading, but there are others who are not too far behind.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Antonio Querubin [mailto:t...@lava.net]
Sent:
On Jan 27, 2011, at 1:29 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I'm saying that in IPv6, we've put enough addresses in to allow for things
> nobody has thought of in 30, 60, 90, even 100 years and then some.
Possibly, as long as we don't blow through them via exercises in profligacy
nobody has heretofore th
Two good lists are here:
http://www.sixxs.net/faq/connectivity/?faq=native
http://www.sixxs.net/wiki/IPv6_Enabled_Service_Providers
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Charles N Wyble [mailto:char...@knownelement.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 3:52 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: What
This is all hearsay, but I learned from a shared vendor that AT&T is putting
pressure on them to complete their IPv6 support, so that the vendor is
moving up completion from Q4 to Q2. This was a sales person talking, so who
knows.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Charles N Wyble [mailto:ch
On Jan 26, 2011, at 9:31 PM, Max Pierson wrote:
> >V4 30 years ago -- expected consumption: ~60 /8s of 256.
> >IPv6 today -- expected consumption: Maybe 15 /12s of 4096.
> >The scales in question are vastly different.
>
> I made no such comparison between the two. The scales are vastly different
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 08:33:10PM -0500, Warren Kumari wrote:
>
> On Jan 24, 2011, at 6:22 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
>
> >> You can get a CLEAR WiMAX fixed modem with static IP address for $50
> >> (USD) monthly, or less if you opt for the low-bandwidth plan.
> >
> > I wouldn't dare rely on s
On 26/01/2011 06:14 a.m., Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> That said. Any size prefix will likely work and is even permitted by
>>> the RFC. You do run the risk of encountering applications that assume
>>> a 64-bit prefix length, though. And you're often crippling the
>>> advantages of IPv6.
>>
>> Just cu
On 26/01/2011 11:36 p.m., Douglas Otis wrote:
>>> Discovery implemented at layer 2 fully mitigate these issues? I too
>>> would be interested in hearing from Radia and Fred.
>> It need not. Also, think about actual deployment of SEND: for instance,
>> last time I checked Windows Vista didn't supp
On 1/25/11 6:00 PM, Fernando Gont wrote:
On 24/01/2011 08:42 p.m., Douglas Otis wrote:
It seems efforts related to IP address specific policies are likely
doomed by the sheer size of the address space, and to be pedantic, ARP
has been replaced with multicast neighbor discovery which dramatically
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Florin Veres wrote:
> Hey guys,
> Do any of you have any idea if it's possible to upload configuration from a
> script (prefix-list updates in this case) to a JunOS device (MX)?
> For Cisco devices I'm doing it using rcp.
>From config mode use a "load merge" co
On Jan 26, 2011, at 3:13 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 12:56:01 -1000, Antonio Querubin said:
>> On Wed, 26 Jan 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
Listen a.b.c.d:80 -> Listen 80
->
>>> That only works if you have only one address on the machine an
On Jan 26, 2011, at 2:59 PM, Antonio Querubin wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> It would be nice if BSD would correct their IPV6_V6ONLY behavior instead
>> of putting up an alleged security red herring. I'm not sure why Micr0$0ft
>> suffers
>> from this braindeath.
>
> Or a
On Jan 25, 2011, at 3:35 PM, Max Pierson wrote:
> >I think you may still be missing my point...
> >There are way more /48s available than will ever get used.
> >There are way more /32s available than will ever get used.
>
> No, I think you're missing my point. Your statements above are of your
On Jan 24, 2011, at 6:22 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
>> You can get a CLEAR WiMAX fixed modem with static IP address for $50
>> (USD) monthly, or less if you opt for the low-bandwidth plan.
>
> I wouldn't dare rely on something of that nature for a lifeline connection.
> I'd spring for the ext
On 01/26/2011 11:02 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Free.fr stuck their customers with /60s, which is
> hopefully a very temporary situation.
Stuck with /64 in practice, which will evolve into /60 when the IPv6
support in their Freebox will be better. I don't think that we'll get
anything more than /60 b
In message , Owen DeLong write
s:
>
> On Jan 26, 2011, at 1:52 PM, Charles N Wyble wrote:
>
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >=20
> >=20
> > Is anyone tracking the major consumer/business class access networks
> > delivery of ipv6 in North America?
> >=20
> > I'm on ATT DS
On Wed, 2011-01-26 at 11:53 +0700, Roland Dobbins wrote:
> On Jan 26, 2011, at 11:37 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> The supreme irony of this situation is that folks who're convinced
> that there's no way we can even run out of addresses often accuse
> those of us who're plentitude-skeptics of old-fashi
On Jan 26, 2011, at 1:52 PM, Charles N Wyble wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> Is anyone tracking the major consumer/business class access networks
> delivery of ipv6 in North America?
>
> I'm on ATT DSL. It looks like they want to use 6rd? I've only briefly
> look
Additionally for DNS don't forget to add IPv6 glue for the nameservers
for your zones to the parent zones.
For named in particular listen-on-v6 needs to be specified as it
is not on by default e.g. "listen-on-v6 { any; };". Named will ask
questions over IPv6 by default even if it isn't listening
I do this with pyexpect for blacklist updating. It works amazingly well.
One thing to remember when communicating with the JunOS device is that
if you fail to disable the CLI controls, communicating with the device
is very difficult.
I do something like:
import pexpect
child = pexpect.spawn
Hey guys,
Do any of you have any idea if it's possible to upload configuration from a
script (prefix-list updates in this case) to a JunOS device (MX)?
For Cisco devices I'm doing it using rcp.
Thanks,
Florin
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 12:56:01 -1000, Antonio Querubin said:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> >> Listen a.b.c.d:80 -> Listen 80
> >>->
> >>
> > That only works if you have only one address on the machine and.
>
> Actually it works fine on machines with multiple IP addre
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011, Charles N Wyble wrote:
How about TimeWarnerCable? They don't seem to have any sort of v6
offering, on wholesale or retail services.
TW Cable has no IPv6 offering.
However, TW Telecom provides IPv6 connectivity upon request. By default
they only provide a /56 if you need
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011, Randy McAnally wrote:
The only issue I've faced is RHEL/CentOS doesn't have stateful connection
tracking for IPv6 - so ip6tables is practically worthless.
As long as you're willing to run your iptables through a modification
filter to generate the corresponding ip6tables
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
It would be nice if BSD would correct their IPV6_V6ONLY behavior instead
of putting up an alleged security red herring. I'm not sure why Micr0$0ft
suffers
from this braindeath.
Or at the very least document this in plain site in the IPv6 section of
the
On Wednesday, January 26, 2011 05:01:31 pm Randy McAnally wrote:
> I've worked around it by compiling custom (newer) Kernels on systems that need
> it. Apparently support was added some time around 2.6.20, but of course RHEL5
> is still in the dark ages of 2.6.18.
RHEL has the eMRG kernel availab
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
Listen a.b.c.d:80 -> Listen 80
->
That only works if you have only one address on the machine and.
Actually it works fine on machines with multiple IP addresses for both
FreeBSD and CentOS. And IPv6 enabled servers can easily have mult
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/26/2011 01:52 PM, Charles N Wyble wrote:
>
> Is anyone tracking the major consumer/business class access networks
> delivery of ipv6 in North America?
>
> I'm on ATT DSL. It looks like they want to use 6rd? I've only briefly
> looked into 6r
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 16:52, Charles N Wyble wrote:
(SNIP)
Comcast is currently conducting trials:
> http://comcast6.net/ (anyone participated in this?)
>
Yes, I am in one of their trials now.
For the trial I am in (Residential cable, 6RD) they shipped me a
Cisco/Linksys running OpenWRT/LuCI.
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 13:56:05 PST, Charles N Wyble said:
> > The only issue I've faced is RHEL/CentOS doesn't have stateful connection
> > tracking for IPv6 - so ip6tables is practically worthless.
>
>
> H. Interesting. I wonder if this is specific to the RedHat kernel?
> Or a problem with v6
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 13:56:05 -0800, Charles N Wyble wrote
> > The only issue I've faced is RHEL/CentOS doesn't have stateful connection
> > tracking for IPv6 - so ip6tables is practically worthless.
>
> H. Interesting. I wonder if this is specific to the RedHat
> kernel?
I've worked around
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/26/2011 01:50 PM, Randy McAnally wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 10:22:40 -0800, Charles N Wyble wrote
>
>> For the most part, I'm a data center/application
>> administrator/content provider kind of guy. As such, I want to
>> provide all my web c
Thus spake Randy McAnally (r...@fast-serv.com) on Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at
04:50:22PM -0500:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 10:22:40 -0800, Charles N Wyble wrote
>
> > For the most part, I'm a data center/application
> > administrator/content provider kind of guy. As such, I want to
> > provide all my web c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Is anyone tracking the major consumer/business class access networks
delivery of ipv6 in North America?
I'm on ATT DSL. It looks like they want to use 6rd? I've only briefly
looked into 6rd. Is this a dead end path/giant hack?
https://sites.google.c
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 10:22:40 -0800, Charles N Wyble wrote
> For the most part, I'm a data center/application
> administrator/content provider kind of guy. As such, I want to
> provide all my web content over ipv6, and support ipv6 SMTP. What
> are folks doing in this regard?
The only issue I'
> That's definitely a bug. Mapped addresses should never hit the wire.
>
> Dual stack is quite a bit safer than NAT64/DNS64. The bug you describe
> should be fairly trivial to get fixed if someone can isolate which
> product
> actually has the bug. Have you tried the current kernel under the
> exi
Hello,
I was wondering if anyone has successfully deployed a multi WAN product using
encapsulation bridge1483 on the Ericsson SmartEdge platform.
Please hit me offline, I can forward you my configs.
Tony
On Jan 26, 2011, at 11:18 AM, George Bonser wrote:
>>
>> Application level support on Linux/FreeBSD/NetBSD is 98% and rising
>> every day. Apache, BIND, Postfix, they all work great. The "problem"
>> is you may need config adjustment. Your Apache ListenOn's will need
>> IPv6 added, your Postf
On Jan 26, 2011, at 11:17 AM, Francois Tigeot wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:22:40AM -0800, Charles N Wyble wrote:
>> For the most part, I'm a data center/application administrator/content
>> provider kind of guy. As such, I want to provide all my web content over
>> ipv6, and support ipv6 S
On Jan 26, 2011, at 11:17 AM, Antonio Querubin wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2011, Charles N Wyble wrote:
>
>> Do I just need to assign ip addresses to my servers, add records to
>> my DNS server and that's it? I'm running PowerDNS for DNS, Apache for
>> WWW. Postfix for SMTP.
>
> Best to remove
On Jan 26, 2011, at 11:22 AM, George Bonser wrote:
>> And if your servers behind the LB aren't prepared for it, you lose a
>> LOT
>> of logging data, geolocation capabilities, and some other things if
> you
>> go that route.
>>
>> Owen
>
> Relying on IP address for geolocation is actually quite
On Jan 26, 2011, at 11:10 AM, David Freedman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> And if your servers behind the LB aren't prepared for it, you lose a LOT
>> of logging data, geolocation capabilities, and some other things if you
>> go that route.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>>
>>
>
> I can't imagine an LB vendor who woul
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 10:49 PM, Mark D. Nagel wrote:
> This can bite you in unexpected ways, too. For example, on a Cisco ASA,
> if you add a system-level 'icmpv6 permit' line and if this does not
> include ND, then you break ND responses to the ASA. This is much unlike
> ARP, which is unaffe
Thus spake Leo Bicknell (bickn...@ufp.org) on Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:55:26AM
-0800:
>
> The layer 3 part for you is really simple. Here's a deployment model we
> use a number of places. I'm going to assume you have a /48, from ARIN
> or your upstream.
>
> Lay out your networks as:
> :BB
Thus spake Jack Carrozzo (j...@crepinc.com) on Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 01:38:48PM
-0500:
> As I understand it, when a client requests a particular domain of yours and
> gets
> an A and an , the client will default to the (assuming it's on a v6
> network) and attempt to communicate as such.
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011, Antonio Querubin wrote:
Best to remove IP version dependencies in your configs.
If you are using name-based virtual hosting in Apache, convert:
Listen a.b.c.d:80 -> Listen 80
->
Use hard-coded IP addresses only where required for stuff like SSL-enabled
web
> And if your servers behind the LB aren't prepared for it, you lose a
> LOT
> of logging data, geolocation capabilities, and some other things if
you
> go that route.
>
> Owen
Relying on IP address for geolocation is actually quite ridiculous
though I do realize that many people seem to believe
>
> Application level support on Linux/FreeBSD/NetBSD is 98% and rising
> every day. Apache, BIND, Postfix, they all work great. The "problem"
> is you may need config adjustment. Your Apache ListenOn's will need
> IPv6 added, your Postfix "local nets" ACL will need your IPv6
addresses
> added,
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:22:40AM -0800, Charles N Wyble wrote:
> For the most part, I'm a data center/application administrator/content
> provider kind of guy. As such, I want to provide all my web content over
> ipv6, and support ipv6 SMTP. What are folks doing in this regard?
>
> Do I just ne
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011, Charles N Wyble wrote:
Do I just need to assign ip addresses to my servers, add records to
my DNS server and that's it? I'm running PowerDNS for DNS, Apache for
WWW. Postfix for SMTP.
Best to remove IP version dependencies in your configs.
If you are using name-based
On 01/26/2011 07:46 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Do I just need to assign ip addresses to my servers, add records to
>> my DNS server and that's it? I'm running PowerDNS for DNS, Apache for
>> WWW. Postfix for SMTP.
>>
> It might be that simple, it might not. Depends on your application.
>
> For
>>
>>
> And if your servers behind the LB aren't prepared for it, you lose a LOT
> of logging data, geolocation capabilities, and some other things if you
> go that route.
>
> Owen
>
>
>
I can't imagine an LB vendor who would sell a v6 to v4 vip solution who
wouldn't provide a way to inject the v6
In a message written on Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:22:40AM -0800, Charles N Wyble
wrote:
> For the most part, I'm a data center/application administrator/content
> provider kind of guy. As such, I want to provide all my web content over
> ipv6, and support ipv6 SMTP. What are folks doing in this reg
On 26/01/2011 20:22, Charles N Wyble wrote:
For the most part, I'm a data center/application administrator/content
provider kind of guy. As such, I want to provide all my web content over
ipv6, and support ipv6 SMTP. What are folks doing in this regard?
Do I just need to assign ip addresses to
On Jan 26, 2011, at 10:39 AM, George Bonser wrote:
>
>
>> From: Charles N Wyble
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 10:23 AM
>> To: nanog@nanog.org
>> Subject: Ipv6 for the content provider
>>
>> For the most part, I'm a data center/application administrator/content
>> provider kind of guy.
>
> Do I just need to assign ip addresses to my servers, add records to
> my DNS server and that's it? I'm running PowerDNS for DNS, Apache for
> WWW. Postfix for SMTP.
>
It might be that simple, it might not. Depends on your application.
For the DNS and Mail, it should be pretty much that
> From: Charles N Wyble
> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 10:23 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Ipv6 for the content provider
>
> For the most part, I'm a data center/application administrator/content
> provider kind of guy. As such, I want to provide all my web content
> over
> ipv6, and
Bind and apache work with v6 out of the box, and have for years. As I
understand it, when a client requests a particular domain of yours and gets
an A and an , the client will default to the (assuming it's on a v6
network) and attempt to communicate as such. Failing that, it will fall back
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
All the recurring threads about prefix length, security posture, ddos,
consumer CPE support have been somewhat interesting to my service
provider alter ego. Ipv6 is definitely on folks minds this year. The
threads seem a lot less trollish as w
On 1/26/2011 11:03 AM, Tim Franklin wrote:
So they're telling us, at least for PPPoE specifically. Cisco solution is "buy
ASR".
This is same solution they've given for the 7206 and other traditional
IOS platforms. I haven't checked, but all the RBE/unnumbered vlan
support for IPv6 with pr
I believe it has to do with IPv6 mechanisms for handling native
addressing. I haven't had the opportunity to test it myself, but from
dealing with other vendors, I find that they all support subsets of
possible configurations. For example, we test the following with each
CPE device which suppor
On Jan 25, 2011, at 2:07 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 16:17:59 EST, Ricky Beam said:
>> On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 19:46:19 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> Dude... In IPv6, there are 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 /64s.
>>
>> Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repea
I haven't done exhaustive testing, but, it has to do with certain combinations
of IPv4 configurations and IPv6 routing do work and other combinations
don't.
Owen
On Jan 26, 2011, at 4:41 AM, Richard Barnes wrote:
> Could you elaborate? Which circumstances?
>
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 4:23 AM,
> 10K isn't supporting IPv6 on PPPoE? I thought the 10K specialized in
> utilizing the IOS SR line. I've played with PPPoE and bridging on the
> 7200s mostly. I need to kick up an ASR, as I hear it's specialized
> code line has much better IPv6 support than IOS SR. both XR/XE codes
> seem to be m
On 1/26/2011 9:36 AM, Tim Franklin wrote:
Terminating PPPoE generally isn't much different than terminating
VLANs. In Juniper world, it requires the right equipment. Cisco
world, it's not generally a big deal.
Unless, for example, you already sunk a chunk of change into Cisco 10Ks, and
now
I think we're losing focus on the discussion here.
The core issue here is that ND tables have a finite size, just like
ARP tables. Making an unsolicited request to a subnet will cause ND
on the router to try and reach find the host.
This can be a problem with subnets as small as 1024 (I constant
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Cisco Security Advisory: Cisco Content Services Gateway Vulnerabilities
Advisory ID: cisco-sa-20110126-csg2
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/707/cisco-sa-20110126-csg2.shtml
Revision 1.0
For Public Release 2011 January 26 1600 UTC (GMT
> Terminating PPPoE generally isn't much different than terminating
> VLANs. In Juniper world, it requires the right equipment. Cisco
> world, it's not generally a big deal.
Unless, for example, you already sunk a chunk of change into Cisco 10Ks, and
now want IPv6 on your PPPoE. Not that I'm be
What I found when visiting this in my own organization that being an
Enterprise and "pseudo" service provider, is that naming fits into
several categories.
1. Hostnames/Prompts
2. Rack Switches in Data centers
3. Path. Meaning routed interfaces that the world sees in the form of
PTR records.
Pro
> I recommend documenting your naming standard and getting buy in across your
> organization before you put it into place.
This is a necessary condition for successful deployment, but not part of the
schema.
On Jan 25, 2011, at 11:32 PM, David Miller wrote:
> On 1/25/2011 8:15 PM, Gary Stee
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/routers/ps295/products_configuration_example09186a0080093e3b.shtml
http://s-tools1.juniper.net/solutions/literature/white_papers/200187.pdf
3rd party vendors might want to have me onboard :-) otherwise you can come up
w/
your own piece of kit, rfc' it an
On 1/26/2011 8:12 AM, Paul Stewart wrote:
No, we're not putting ERX's at people's homes ... not sure where you got
that from? What I was saying is that if you're running PPPOE then you have
have somewhere in the service provider network to "terminate" the
sessions
Hey. It was the middle of
> PPPOE Cons
>
> --
>
>
>
> Requires PPPOE termination router (Juniper ERX for example)
>
You're putting Juniper ERXs at customer houses? Really? I'd expect to
see DSL/Cable drops which will utilize cheap end CPE (most of which
don't support IPv6 hardly at all).
No, we're not putting E
On 1/24/2011 4:20 PM, Ray Soucy wrote:
That said. By not using the 64-bit boundary you may be sacrificing
performance optimizations with today's processors that lack operations
for values larger than 64-bits.
Is this an issue for any known vendors today?
Thank you for the response...
I should have made this a bit clearer - option 82 is an option on their
DSLAM's today and is supposed to work "not bad". But this customer may also
be looking at other services such as wireless in the future which does not
support option 82 - they want a unified deli
Could you elaborate? Which circumstances?
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 4:23 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> It works for routing native IPv6 under some circumstances as well.
>
> Owen
>
> On Jan 26, 2011, at 12:01 AM, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 26 Jan 2011, Franck Martin wrote:
>>
>>> What a
On Jan 26, 2011, at 6:29 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> In practice you'd aim for ~um resolution for all major gravity wells in this
> system (DTN is already flying, there's a Cisco box in Earth orbit, Moon and
> Mars are next).
Don't forget the asteroid belt, that's where the real money is.
--
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 01:33:05AM +, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
> > Even if every RIR gets to 3 /12s in 50 years, that's still only 15/512ths
> > of the
> > initial /3 delegated to unicast space by IETF. There are 6+ more /3s
> > remaining
> > in the IETF pool.
>
> That's good news - we need t
I just wanted to say thank you for a TONNE of feedback I received on this
topic. This has been of great help in filling in some items I missed in my
quick list.
Will try to respond offlist to several of you that responded - got over 100
replies offline with some interesting ideas. I definitely l
It works for routing native IPv6 under some circumstances as well.
Owen
On Jan 26, 2011, at 12:01 AM, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2011, Franck Martin wrote:
>
>> What about an Airport Extreme? It has a wan interface that does PPPOE
>>
>> The IPv6 feature seems working, with
Hi,
Maybe a bit more to explain. Up to now I asked the vendors to provide certain
information before adding a box to the matrix. Apple was send a copy but they
never responded. In future we are going to build the matrix upon user supplied
data. See the article on the future of this work at
htt
On Jan 25, 2011, at 10:30 PM, Fernando Gont wrote:
> On 24/01/2011 05:53 p.m., Ray Soucy wrote:
>> Every time I see this question it' usually related to a fundamental
>> misunderstanding of IPv6 and the attempt to apply v4 logic to v6.
>>
>> That said. Any size prefix will likely work and is ev
In article <051001cbbcf0$c33e8b20$49bba160$@org> you write:
>PPPOE vs DHCP
>Allows full authentication of customers (requires username/password)
You probably want to authenticate on circuit id, not username/password.
ATM port/vpi/vci for ATM connections, or PPPoE circuit id tag added
by the DSLAM
At 22-07-28164 20:59, Max Pierson wrote:
> From the provider perspective, what is the prefix-length that most are
accepting to be injected into your tables?? 2 or so years ago, I read where
someone stated that they were told by ATT that they weren't planning on
accepting anything smaller than a
On Jan 25, 2011, at 9:49 PM, Roland Dobbins wrote:
>
> On Jan 26, 2011, at 12:33 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
>
>> The correct assumption is that most people will try and usually succeed at
>> follow the specifications, as that is what is required to
>> successfully participate in a protocol (any pro
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011, Franck Martin wrote:
What about an Airport Extreme? It has a wan interface that does PPPOE
The IPv6 feature seems working, with 6to4 or static tunnels and a basic IPv6
firewall.
Yes it is. I already reported to Marco.
http://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco/content-ipv6-cp
91 matches
Mail list logo
